So who's going to the British Chess Championships?

[David Gilbert]

That'll be it then! Who would have of predicted a nationwide slump in U-125s and a wasteland of unfulfilled promise.....

[Stewart Reuben]

I suspect that last time the U125 was held in Torquay juniors were allowed to compete. Thus you are not comparing like with like. Once the grades have been aligned so that juniors are no longer so under-graded, then they presumably they will no longer be barred.
Of course there will always be some variance from year to year. But there has been an underlying movement from junior events to the Major Open, or playing both morning and afternoon. This has led to fewer adult players taking part in the MO as they don't want to put their rating at stake against under-rated kids. The rating prizes in the MO are now solely for adults to help overcome this 'prejudice'.
Stewart Reuben

[Alex Holowczak]

Maybe nobody's graded under 125 any more?

Maybe everyone entered on the assumption that their grade would go up in the new grades. So those who were eligible for the U125s entered the U150s instead.

[Stewart Reuben]

Understanding the entry form for the British (designed by me) is about A Level standard. Even so, I hope people realised entry to the grading list restricted events was based on the 2008 ECF List as stated in that form.
Stewart Reuben

[Carl Hibbard]

Good news. The overall entry now exceeds 800 and could eventually surpass the 824 who made the pilgrimage to Great Yarmouth two years ago.

Looks like that number has gone according to the official site:-

http://www.britishchess09.com/

[Andy Burnett]

I've just noticed this on the 'British' homepage...

ACCELERATED BRIDGING FINANCE LIMITED, a specialist lending company, is sponsoring the start money for leading players participating in the British Chess Championship in Torquay 26 July to 8 August. Their address: 3 Blundellsands Road East, Blundellsands, Liverpool L23 6TF.

I was under the impression, from previous posts, that the English Chess Federation was fronting the appearance money for the English players. Am I simply not understanding how this works (the ECF finds a sponsor to cover solely English GM costs perhaps?) or were the earlier posts inaccurate?

Andy Burnett

[David Gilbert]

Keep up Andy! The sponsorship debate has a thread of its very own on the ECF pages, albeit about six weeks old now.

For me now, the rusty headlamps on the old mondeo are polished, the brochure for the golf ball museum at Brixham is safely packed away and the rubber band is securely fastened around the trusty old chess box. We’re off! For two weeks its goodbye London and the moving underground railway and hello Torquay, the yachtimng marina and synchronised chess.

See some of you there. Best of luck Stewart watching from afar. Get better soon.

[E Michael White]

Should players in the British play on a few more moves say 3-5 when the position is resignable?

I’ve heard all the arguments about respect for the oppo etc and used to think that way myself; but now regard it as false etiquette.

These games go out live or appear later on the internet and beginners want to know what might happen next to be able to learn a bit more from the game rather than be left in the air with a 1-0. Anything that can be done to encourage potential new players has to be a good thing.

I saw a TV program in 1993 ish with Carol Vaudermann, Speelman, Keene and others. Someone resigned and the perplexed Ms Vaudermann more or less said – “why ? what could happen?”. Most of the commentators declined to comment except to say the position was easily resignable. Eventually Speelman came up with “I suppose this could be a variation …. “ .

Elsewhere on this forum there is talk about TV coverage and sponsorship so the product matters.

[Stewart Reuben]

E Michael White raises a valid point.
Bent Larsen one said, 'you shouldn't resign until all the spectators understand why you have done so.'
A friend of mine said he found the games hard to understand in the 1993 World Championship because they stropped halfway.

My opinion is that, for spectator events, such as the one in London at the end of the year, players should continue to mate. Or, if drawn, to repetition or 50 move rule, or an ending where a different result would be wildly implausible.
Thus the etiquette would be as in the regulations. I have never heard of people giving up in a cricket, football or tennis match, although I saw Steve Davis once offer a draw in a particular snooker frame - it was repetition.

I had not previously thought about the fact that, for the British for example, most of the spectators are online. It is not a good example because the event is financed relatively poorly. Thus Gibraltar would be a better example. Cost £150,000. Entry fee income £15,000 at a guess. But the analogy with live spectators is imperfect. Those viewing the games online I am sure are much stronger players than those who view games on TV.

Stewart Reuben

[Roger de Coverly]

I have never heard of people giving up in a cricket, football or tennis match,

In first class cricket I think the captains can agree a draw half an hour before the scheduled close of play when neither team can possibly win. In tennis, you can claim injury and forfeit that way. In motor racing and horse racing you can retire from the race.

What about boxing ? From a famous fight in the past http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_A ... nny_Liston

He failed to answer the bell for the seventh round and Clay was declared the winner by technical knockout.

Thus you can resign in boxing. The arbiter (referee) can even resign for you by stopping the fight.

I don't play poker, but isn't one of the key skills knowing when to fold (resign the current hand)?

Am I right in thinking that backgammon games can be abruptly terminated with the doubling cube?


So there are plenty of games and sports where the contest can come to a premature end. You shouldn't compare a team event (soccer/rugby etc.) to an individual event (chess/boxing etc.) In individual events, resigns is frequently allowed.

[Ian Thompson]

Those viewing the games online I am sure are much stronger players than those who view games on TV.

... and they are likely to have access to a chess playing program to tell them how the game might have continued.

[Ian Lamb]

yes ian there a few people who watch on line who have rybka or crafy running thats correct.

[Matthew Turner]

The pairings are out and there looks to be some interesting ones

Williams - Rudd
Hawkins - Arkell
Briscoe - Hebden
Zhou - Greet

Look like candidates for upsets to me

[E Michael White]

Roger de C

My point is more one of minor repackaging to make it more appealing to a sponsor and audiences than the technical end of a contest. The sports you mention have undergone repackaging in either the rules or the format eg 20-20 cricket to make them more appealing while at the same time ensuring a contest of likely reasonable length. Our presentation has changed little apart from internet coverage, which is interesting for regular chess players with Fritz at hand but doesn’t as yet bring in any financial sponsorship to chess.

Imagine you are the CEO of a potential sponsor. Maybe you are looking to hold a marketing event for business contacts, and your vision is that during lunch games are displayed on large screens from the internet. You test out the concept by looking on the internet at the British and see the following position in one of the games:-

Pos.jpg

Black has just captured with 1. … Nxe7 and White an established GM finds 2. Rxc8!! which is mate in 17 whereas 2. Kxe7 would be mate in 38. The game continues 2. … Nxc8 3. Kd7 ! and after 5 minutes thought Black a new young IM resigns as he wants to show he can see the continuation is hopeless and doesn’t want to look silly, he also wants to get to the bar quicker with his friends .

Is that what the potential sponsor wants to see?

Surely its better for the game to continue 3… Bb7 4. c6 Ba6 5. c7+ Kb7 6. Rxc8 Bb5+ 7. Kd8 Ba6 8.Rb8 Kc6 then either 9.c8Q which is a longer mate in 15 when 9…. Resigns, or even continue with 9. Ra8 Bb7 10.Ra7 Kb6 11.Rxb7 Kxb7 12.c8 Q resigns – also beyond doubt.

I don’t think agreeing draws after a reasonable number of moves to avoid playing 50 move ending draws are much of a presentational problem

[Alex Holowczak]

Roger de C

My point is more one of minor repackaging to make it more appealing to a sponsor and audiences than the technical end of a contest. The sports you mention have undergone repackaging in either the rules or the format eg 20-20 cricket to make them more appealing while at the same time ensuring a contest of likely reasonable length. Our presentation has changed little apart from internet coverage, which is interesting for regular chess players with Fritz at hand but doesn’t as yet bring in any financial sponsorship to chess.

Maybe the page where the games are streamed could be sold to advertising? Pretty much any website can get generic adverts on the Internet and earn some money that way. I don't know exact details, but I know it exists. Just don't mention Firefox's brilliant ad-blocker add-on...

Twenty20 cricket is not a contest of reasonable length. England lost a game to The Netherlands. The Dutch would have no chance in a Test Match. Twenty20 is just a game for a bit of fun of little relevant importance. It'd be like turning the British Championship into a Blitz Tournament.